A longitudinal study (1999 and 2019) examining permanent ‘expulsionary’ punishment (PEP), or enrolment cancellation for perceived misbehaviour, from Australian and particularly Queensland government schools

Brian Higgins

doi:10.25907/00983

This research investigates the attitudes of staff participants in state schools within Education Queensland, and to a lesser extent other Australian schooling authorities. The attitudes measured are those of school leaders, teaching and support staff about children's behaviours. Specifically, the research examines staff attitudes regarding schooling approaches in response to perceived misbehaviours. It focuses on attitudes regarding discipline, indiscipline, and exclusionary punishments, with a lens on Permanent Expulsionary Punishment, a term coined within this study. Permanent Expulsionary Punishment refers to the permanent removal of students from school, often for behaviours that may be strongly influenced by developmental stages. Important here is that the behaviour of all children is influenced by stages of cognitive and emotional development, an ongoing process till their early twenties. A range of other internal as well as external factors also impact behaviour, and these are commonly linked to heredity and/or environment. Furthermore, Permanent Expulsionary Punishment is disproportionately applied across schools and demographics, with higher rates evident for already at-risk children. The study highlights the contradiction between Australia’s commitment to universal compulsory schooling and the practice of excluding students from education, particularly vulnerable groups. The research identifies the cultural, social, and policy influences that perpetuate the use of Permanent Expulsionary Punishment. Thus, these influences enact punitive responses that disproportionately affect disadvantaged children, including those of First Nations Heritage. Despite numerous studies on this issue, the application trend is upwards. This research argues that the lack of substantial change in policies and practice, especially regarding Permanent Expulsionary Punishment, reflects ideological and political barriers that reinforce social inequities in education. The methodology employed in this study combines qualitative and quantitative data from surveys conducted with Education Queensland staff at two distinct time points, twenty years apart: 1999 and 2019. The goal was to track changes in attitudes over time, particularly concerning the use of exclusionary punishment, and to identify the ideological causes for inertia in addressing the issue. The research methodology focuses on measuring staff perceptions, including if and how staff might attribute blame for student misbehaviour. The particular focus is on the differential treatment of students. Data were collected from secondary, primary, and special education staff, allowing for an analysis of staff cohort differences, including between school leaders and non-leaders, and across gender and experience levels. The research utilised a critical theoretical framework, drawing upon Foucault's ideas on power and social control, and focused on how these influences contribute to the perpetuation of exclusionary disciplinary practices. This approach enabled the identification of significant attitudinal differences amongst staff. The potential implications are considered of these links between attitudes and the policies and practices regarding Permanent Expulsionary Punishment. The findings suggest that staff attitudes, particularly in secondary schools and among school leaders, significantly contribute to the ongoing use of Permanent Expulsionary Punishment, despite its negative consequences. Over the two decades of the study, there has been little change in the attitudes toward exclusionary punishment, with staff often attributing misbehaviour to external factors like family circumstances and trauma or internal factors like disorders rather than limited attribution to potential school-related causes. Furthermore, the study found that attitudes towards Permanent Expulsionary Punishment and other exclusionary punishments are shaped by ideological forces that reinforce social stratification and inequity within communities that also affect education. Notably, vulnerable students, including those from First Nations Heritage, are disproportionately affected by Permanent Expulsionary Punishment, reflecting broader social and educational inequalities faced. These disparities are compounded by social, political and economic factors, such as the rise of private schooling and the uneven distribution of resources between state and private schools. The research argues that the continuing use of Permanent Expulsionary Punishment, particularly within Education Queensland, is not only a policy issue but also a reflection of societal ideologies. These widespread ideological factors tend to reproduce social hierarchies and contribute to the marginalisation of already disadvantaged groups. The implications of these findings are significant, suggesting that reform in disciplinary practices must address not only policy and practice but also the underlying social and ideological forces that perpetuate exclusionary practices. Ultimately, this research calls for a rethinking of how children’s behaviour is interpreted and how so-called ‘disciplinary’ measures, particularly permanent expulsion, are applied in a way that supports, rather than marginalises vulnerable students, in particular.

A longitudinal study (1999 and 2019) examining permanent ‘expulsionary’ punishment (PEP), or enrolment cancellation for perceived misbehaviour, from Australian and particularly Queensland government schools

Files and links (1)

Abstract

Details

Metrics